Are HDTVs really better than EDTVs?

[Jack]

Well, this is probably opening a can of worms but...

Is the image on an HDTV always (or almost always) better than an EDTV assuming that the scaler is the same quality in both units? I'm thinking of plasma TVs but I suppose it could apply to other types as well.

I've read that EDTVs can actually perform better than HDTVs if the source video is not high definition. For example, with DVDs little or no upconversion takes place when using an EDTV.

I've also read that even with a high definition source, HDTVs will show an image maybe 10 percent better than EDTVs of the same quality which might not really be worth the additional cost.

On the other hand, I've been told in this forum that EDTVs have a problem because they cannot map 16:9 signals one for one which results in a less than crystal clear image.

So, any reactions, thoughts?

 

[djoxygen]

As usual the correct answer (which you already know based on your post) is, "It Depends."

The ideal situation would be a 1920x1080 source with a 1920x1080 monitor and a pure digital connection. 1:1 pixel ratio in both X and Y axes. No scaling, no interpolation.

Next best would be simpler ratios like 2:1 or 3:2 with good interpolation algorithms.

Given that DVDs are 480 pixels in the Y axis, the ratio to get to 720 is 3:2, while the ratio to get to 1080 is 9:4. The math to scale a DVD up to an EDTV resolution is much simpler.

However, IMO, unless you're really committed to an extensive DVD library and SD broadcast, I'd be inclined to hold out for a monitor that can do full HD resolution since there will never be much EDTV source material.

 

[Jack]

However, IMO, unless you're really committed to an extensive DVD library and SD broadcast, I'd be inclined to hold out for a monitor that can do full HD resolution since there will never be much EDTV source material.

OK but might there be (a lot of) situations where the EDTV shows a better image? For one thing, the contrast ratios on the EDTVs are higher than HDTVs. That must have something to do with the manufacturing process. In any case, that should mean a better image, no?

And if you do have only DVDs and SD OTA for the near future, is it worth it to pay for the HDTV with the idea that you are going to benefit from it a few years down the road? Probably if it really doesn't show more artifacts than the HDTV with SD OTA or DVDs.

 

[djoxygen]

Well, I did say it was my opinion. Depends on what's more important to you. Someone else who already has a decent set (like me, for example) might want to wait until native HD digital projectors or flat panels are more widely available, more affordable, and have overcome some of the contrast/brightness issues that have been hurdles for most display technologies in their early days.

Sounds like you do have a pretty strong future for SD source material for the near future. If you want a new monitor now, ED might be the best choice for your needs and desires. Maybe someone on the forums has seen how a 1080 input scales to a 720 display and can tell you what to expect when you do have HD source material. (At a 2:3 ratio, it shouldn't suffer too much.)

 

[Unregistered]

An HD display is always capable of showing more resolution than ED.

That doesn't mean that your colors will be better on the HD display or that you actually care enough to dish out the extra cash for 40% more pixels on your screen, it just means that you get more pixels for your money.

Now, really, you have to look at what HDTV REALLY means as opposed to what people call it in stores. I have not been in the A/V business for a really long time, but I did learn what the definition of HD is and it often surprises people that know a lot more than I do when they find out.

NTSC is the standard that every american television has supported for years. Basically it includes 480i programming.

ATSC is the new stuff and it includes what people call HDTV, but is not necesarily HDTV. It includes 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i (as well as a couple others I can't think of off the top of my head).

Now, 480p is what the industry has dubbed EDTV. Any display that has 480 fixed pixels of resolution gets called that and typically will cost you a lot less than a display with 720 or 768 lines of resolution. But, the kicker is that your EDTV display will handle the 1080i signals and 720p signals coming into it and make them look darn good. Some EDTVs definitely are hard to tell apart from some of the cheaper higher resolution models.

A good example of what I am talking about is when you view a DVD on your television vs. watching regular cable. The TV really can't show more resolution because you are watching a DVD, but because the original source is so much nicer looking, you end up with that much nicer of an image on your regular TV.

If you budget only affords EDTV, then go with EDTV. I went with a 1366x768 plasma but I got it for a steal. Yet, I think I may get a EDTV model for my bedroom.

 

[docferdie]

If the price difference is around 10-20% then I say go with the HDTV set. The problem is that there is more than one HDTV resolution available and true 1080p sets are just around the corner.
Contrast ratios are not uniformly higher for EDTVs. It just happened that the EDTV you are looking at has a higher contrast ratio than the HDTV set you are looking at. When you think about it you can theoretically cut off the EDTV "raw material" to a resolution of 1280x720 if you wanted to instead of the 854x480 that it is shipped with. One would be bigger than the other but they should have the same contrast ratio. I think that plasma manufacturing has advanced to the point where having a set with true HDTV resolution does not compromise other aspects of the picture as compared to the same sized EDTV set. I say "true hDTV" because years back I remember seeing "HDTV plasma" sets with a resolution of 1024x1024--now that was just stupid.
All other things being equal--such as manufacturer, quality of the scaler, contrast ratio, etc--a set with a true 16x9 aspect ratio in its native resolution will always be more accurate than one that doesn't have a true 16x9 aspect ratio. 16x9 movies displayed on widescreen EDTV will always be distorted because the aspect ratio of a widescreen EDTV is 16.0125x9. It's the type of distortion that doesn't matter to most people but it is definitely there.

By the way jack, why is it that you do not have access to OTA HDTV. Isn't the penetration pretty good by now?

 

[Jack]

If the price difference is around 10-20% then I say go with the HDTV set. The problem is that there is more than one HDTV resolution available and true 1080p sets are just around the corner.

My problem is that I am stuck in a place where there is no chance of HD OTA in the foreseeable future and I don't want to get stuck with a monitor that introduces more fuziness and artifacts than I have with the EDTV (By the way, I've already purchased the EDTV but I could still swap it for an HDTV since I just purchased it a month ago and the dealer is willing to do the upgrade). Regarding the just around the corner HDTVs...well I want the plasma now and I don't know if I will be able to buy a second one in a few years. So around the corner doesn't do it for me right now.

Contrast ratios are not uniformly higher for EDTVs. It just happened that the EDTV you are looking at has a higher contrast ratio than the HDTV set you are looking at. When you think about it you can theoretically cut off the EDTV "raw material" to a resolution of 1280x720 if you wanted to instead of the 854x480 that it is shipped with. One would be bigger than the other but they should have the same contrast ratio. I think that plasma manufacturing has advanced to the point where having a set with true HDTV resolution does not compromise other aspects of the picture as compared to the same sized EDTV set. I say "true hDTV" because years back I remember seeing "HDTV plasma" sets with a resolution of 1024x1024--now that was just stupid.

Oh. I didn't know that. As far as I knew, Panasonics have the best contrast ratios of any plasmas and at least their HD version has a lower ratio than the ED version. And I read that the HD version does have slightly poorer blacks and greyscale than the ED version.

By the way jack, why is it that you do not have access to OTA HDTV. Isn't the penetration pretty good by now?

I've been posted in Mozambique (one of the poorest countries in the world) by my company for the next few years!!!!

 

[optivity]

Jack,

Take a look at the Optoma PD50 Plasma FP display. Optoma also markets this 50" display through authorized Internet resellers under the Panoview PD50 brand name. The PD50 uses the same panel as the Panasonic TH-50PHD6UY/TH-50PX20UP and is priced for $1000's less. The Panosonic TH-50PHD6UY received the Editor's Choice award on cnet.com. This plasma screen has 1366 x 768 addressable pixels and a 3000:1 contrast ratio. It supports component and dvi connections but does not have an ATSC tuner, HDMI or CableCARD interface. This unit is also available at COSTCO or online at costco.com. I have seen the PD50 available for as low as $3879 at eliteplasma.com

While I am giving this screen serious purchase consideration I'm not sure if I should buy now or wait for the roll-out of the LCoS RPTV's? I would really like a screen that has a high pixel count, supports 480i/480p/720p/1080i/1080p, HDMI, ATSC (native) and CableCARD technology. I'm not sure if there is any High-Def product that can meet all these spec's?

 

[Jack]

The Panosonic TH-50PHD6UY received the Editor's Choice award on cnet.com. This plasma screen has 1366 x 768 addressable pixels and a 3000:1 contrast ratio. It supports component and dvi connections but does not have an ATSC tuner, HDMI or CableCARD interface.

While I am giving this screen serious purchase consideration I'm not sure if I should buy now or wait for the roll-out of the LCoS RPTV's? I would really like a screen that has a high pixel count, supports 480i/480p/720p/1080i/1080p, HDMI, ATSC (native) and CableCARD technology. I'm not sure if there is any High-Def product that can meet all these spec's?

Yeah, well I'm already pretty much convinced that the Panasonics are the best value for the money in plasmas. And I suspect that the lack of HDMI is not that serious as I'm guessing they will come out with a terminal board with HDMI interface in the near future. I see the lack of a tuner as an advantage. I can't see any reason that I would need one.

 

[optivity]

HDMI becomes important when using a Hi-def display's built-in sound system to carry digital sound along with the dvi signal. I'm not sure but a built-in ATSC tuner may come in handy to support a display's, PIP,POP split-screen features if your cable provider uses CableCARD or HDMI-HDCP/DVI-HDCP digital interfaces.

There is a thread going with over 140 posts about the PD50 at avsforum.com if you're interested.

 

[moverton]

Panasonic EDTV/HDTV

All I know is when I look at the Panasonic line. I like the picture on the 42 inch EDTV as well or better than the HDTV version. Even when the signal is 1080i I still like the EDTV as much. I liked DVD's even better on the EDTV version. Maybe if I watched it long enough with more variety of picture the HDTV would show better, I don't know. I've looked at these sets in about 5 different showrooms. Always the same result.
The EDTV version is about $2100 and the HDTV version is $3300 (lowest online prices). I really have to wonder if it is worth it.

Well, this is probably opening a can of worms but...

Is the image on an HDTV always (or almost always) better than an EDTV assuming that the scaler is the same quality in both units? I'm thinking of plasma TVs but I suppose it could apply to other types as well.
...

 

[docferdie]

Finally decided to scope out the panasonic website. The TH-42PD25U/P is an EDTV with a quoted resolution of 852x480 and an MSRP of 2999 while the TH-42PX25U/P is an HDTV with a native resolution of 1024x768 and an MSRP of 5499. No wonder people haven't been seeing much improvement when viewing any image because this is exactly the non-standard resolution I was talking about when I mentioned the Phillips set with a 1024x1024 resolution (which incidentally is actually still available). There is no way you would get 1x1 pixel mapping with any program type with a 1024x768 native resolution on a 16x9 display. High def programs are 1280x720 or 1920x1080 so I don't know how Panasonic was able to slap an HDTV logo on this model. Isn't there some standard, sort of how there is a fixed set of rules that need to be followed to be able to attach the CD logo?

I refrained from making any definite recommendations before but if this is the Panasonic HDTV model that everybody else was seeing then I wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole.

The higher end model has a resolution of 1366x768 again another non-standard resolution with an aspect ratio of 16.0078125x9.
That's probably why I will stick with my DLP set and hold off getting a plasma until they actually commonly produce a high def plasma with a proper 16x9 native resolution with square pixels. Why people don't manufacture more 1280x720 plasmas is beyond me.

 

[moverton]

why 1024x768

they probably are targeting this display more to the corporate market where 1024x768 would make perfect sense.

 

[BMXTRIX]

When you know the definition of HD then you will know why manufacturers can make such absurd statements about what HD is.

480i is HD you know. (no, I am not kidding)

So is 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, 2160p, etc., etc., etc.

I would choose the display you are most happy with for the cash. I lucked into a 50" Sampo (new) for 3200 bucks. 1365x768 which is much closer to the 16x9 aspect it is supposed to be. So, maybe some more shopping is in order. But, if 42" is right for you and you are HAPPY with what you have seen - then get it!

Next year we should finally see the 46" Westinghouse LCD tv which should be 1920x1080 for around 3500 or so. That's what I'm waiting for!

 

[Jack]

All I know is when I look at the Panasonic line. I like the picture on the 42 inch EDTV as well or better than the HDTV version. Even when the signal is 1080i I still like the EDTV as much. I liked DVD's even better on the EDTV version. Maybe if I watched it long enough with more variety of picture the HDTV would show better, I don't know. I've looked at these sets in about 5 different showrooms. Always the same result.

The EDTV version is about $2100 and the HDTV version is $3300 (lowest online prices). I really have to wonder if it is worth it.

Well I bought my Panny EDTV with the thought in mind that I would mostly be using it for DVD and SD OTA. The thing that bugs me is that even with a very good DVD player and DVI connection, sometimes I notice artifacts in dark areas and fuzziness in large background areas (even in bright scenes). So I just wondered if the problems were related to: a) some sort of adjustments that I had failed to make; and/or b) limitations with plasmas in general and/or EDTV.

I have found this thread very useful in the sense of alleviating my stress at thinking there is something more I can do to improve the image such as: a) swap for the HD Panny; or b) fiddle more with the settings.

The advantage (theoretically) of HDTV would be if the native resolution were exactly 16:9 which it isn't for the Pannys. I suspect that the scalers in the Denon 5900 are very good and that the fuzziness and dark artifacts are not related to that.

The problem with doing the visual comparisons in the stores, as I'm sure you know, is that you cannot be sure the settings on the various plasmas are exactly the same and that the source material is exactly the same.

 

[Jack]

Finally decided to scope out the panasonic website. The TH-42PD25U/P is an EDTV with a quoted resolution of 852x480 and an MSRP of 2999 while the TH-42PX25U/P is an HDTV with a native resolution of 1024x768 and an MSRP of 5499. No wonder people haven't been seeing much improvement when viewing any image because this is exactly the non-standard resolution I was talking about when I mentioned the Phillips set with a 1024x1024 resolution (which incidentally is actually still available). There is no way you would get 1x1 pixel mapping with any program type with a 1024x768 native resolution on a 16x9 display.

Good points. So now it has become clear to me. I'm not going to do much better (if at all) swaping to a so-called HD plasma. I did a quick check of the Pioneers which also seem to be highly regarded by plasma buyers. Same problem. Not true 16:9 resolutions. Weird, isn't it? Perhaps once the US goes to all HD OTA at the end of 2006 (isn't that correct?) the plasma manufacturers will start producing true 16:9s. I assume that there is no manufacturing/technical reasons they do not produce them now.

This insight also makes me a bit more immune to the reviews of the so-called HD plasmas in which people rave about the image. I bet I would still be irritated by artifacts and fuzziness.....

I'm pretty much convinced now , given I'm committed to plasma and that I'm primarily viewing DVDs and SD OTA, that I've done about as good as I could with the Panny EDTV.

Thanks very much for this discussion everyone!

 

[djoxygen]

Isn't there some standard?

There's always a "standard". In the case of HD, an HD monitor only has to be capable of displaying an HD source - there is no requirement that the pixel ratio be 1:1. The manufacturers can do whatever interpolations, downscaling, or upscaling they want as long as you can feed it an HD signal and see it on the screen.

 

[djoxygen]

Perhaps once the US goes to all HD OTA at the end of 2006 (isn't that correct?) the plasma manufacturers will start producing true 16:9s. I assume that there is no manufacturing/technical reasons they do not produce them now.

There are some true 1920x1080 displays available, but they are (as you would expect) among the more expensive options. There is no guarantee that the US will go all HD OTA on any particular date. The FCC *may* start reclaiming analog channels from the broadcasters for re-auctioning once 85% of the US population can receive a digital OTA signal. (I don't know if that means 85% actually have digital tuner in the house, or just that 85% are within range of a tower.) However, this "rule" is currently under review because adoption has not proceeded as quickly as was hoped when the rule was enacted. Also, keep in mind that digital OTA does not equal HD OTA.

 

[Unregistered]

When you know the definition of HD then you will know why manufacturers can make such absurd statements about what HD is.

480i is HD you know. (no, I am not kidding)

So is 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, 2160p, etc., etc., etc.

480i is Standard Def
480p is Enhanced Def
720p, 1080i, 1080p are Hi Def

ALL are part of the 'digital tv' (DTV) standard defined by ATSC. Digital Tv and 'hi def' are not the same thing unless you are only talking about 720p, 1080i, or 1080p.

Here is a handy chart that shows all the formats defined as DTV: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html

 

[docferdie]

In the case of HD, an HD monitor only has to be capable of displaying an HD source.

If that's all that's required then some EDTVs which accept HD signals and then scale them should be allowed to have the HD logo but that is simply not the case. I am interested in the minimum specification for a product to legitimately display the HD logo.